Plaintiff,
an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced
this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (see ECF Nos. 1, 5). Presently
before the court is Plaintiff's amended complaint (ECF
No. 8) and, upon review, the court finds that Plaintiff's
factual allegations fail to state a plausible claim for
relief against the named Defendants. Therefore, the
undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).[1]

Plaintiff
names fives Defendants, each of whom was employed at the
Escambia County Jail (“Jail”) at the time of the
events giving rise to this action: Nurse Kelly, Nurse
Practitioner Allison, Nurse Practitioner Marty, Facility
Inspector Whitmore, and Custodian Crums (ECF No. 8 at
1-3).[2]

Plaintiff
essentially complains of two things: exposure to “black
mold” while housed at the jail and inadequate medical
treatment for the symptoms he endured as a result of the mold
exposure (ECF No. 8). As to Defendant Whitmore, Plaintiff
states that he filed a grievance on September 24, 2018, and
thereby placed Whitmore on notice of the black mold exposure,
as well as Plaintiff's symptoms, which included
“harsh coughing, coughing up blood/irregular
breathing” (ECF. No. 8 at 7). Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Whitmore had “constructive knowledge”
of the “violation” and failed to act (ECF No. 8
at 7).

As to
Defendant Crums, Plaintiff faults him for “fail[ing] to
clean the shower with the proper chemicals” and never
attempting to clean the black mold in Plaintiff's
assigned cell or in the dayroom (ECF No. 8 at 8).

Plaintiff
states that he submitted multiple sick call forms to
Defendants Allison and Marty in which described his exposure
to the mold and his symptoms, but he states he was not
assessed (ECF No. 8 at 8). He also states he was given
“mult-cold syptom [sic] pills” by a “PM
nurse” but again complains that the pills were provided
“without [his having] been assessed by [] medical
staff” (ECF No. 8 at 8). Plaintiff states his symptoms
persisted after he took the cold medication and, despite
submitting additional sick call forms, he was not given
medical attention for “multiple days” (ECF No. 8
at 9).

Plaintiff
notes he was seen by Defendant Kelly for sick call and, that
during this visit, he reported his “irregular breathing
breathing [sic], coughing up blood/harsh coughing” (ECF
No. 8 at 9). Plaintiff claims, however, that Defendant Kelly
knowingly and deliberately “inflicted pain” (in
an unspecified manner) and denied Plaintiff medical treatment
(ECF No. 8 at 9).

Plaintiff
contends that each Defendant caused his medical symptoms
described above, as well as “pain and suffering”
(ECF No. 8 at 7-9).

In his
Statement of Claims, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants
violated his right to Due Process under the Fourteenth
Amendment by exposing him to dangerous conditions and by
providing inadequate medical care; he also alleges
“mental anguish (pain/suffering)” (ECF No. 8 at
10). As relief, Plaintiff requests a “reasonable
amount” of punitive damages from Defendants in their
individual capacities, punitive and “compensary
[sic]” damages from Defendants in their official
capacities, and costs (ECF No. 8 at 10).

To
survive dismissal at the screening phase, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.
2D 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The plausibility standard is met only where the
facts alleged enable “the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. The complaint's allegations
must establish “more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.

Mere
“labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do, ” and a
plaintiff cannot rely on “naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and alteration omitted); see alsoFranklin v. Curry, 738 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir.
2013). Stated succinctly:

Pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions,
are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
must be supported by factual allegations. When there are
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise
to an entitlement to relief.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While
the conditions under which a convicted inmate are held are
scrutinized under the Eighth Amendment&#39;s prohibition on
cruel and unusual punishment, claims regarding confinement
conditions and medical care for pretrial detainees are
reviewed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535
n.16 (1979) (using the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause);
see also Lancaster v. Monroe County, Ala., 116 F.3d
1419, 1425 n.6 (11th Cir. 1997); Nam Dang by and through
Vina Dang v. Sheriff, Seminole County Florida, 871 F.3d
1272 (11th Cir. 2017). Nevertheless, the standards are the
same. Belcher v. City of Foley, Ala., 30 F.3d 1390,
1396 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[I]n regard to providing
pretrial detainees with such basic necessities as food,
living space, and medical ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.